What a discussion.... well, I'll leave my two cents, for what it's worth, premising that I haven't read all the comments thoroughly, just quickly, I'm sorry. I would distinguish facts from opinions while fully safeguarding the complete legitimacy of the latter. That this album might not please (like it does not for Punny and others) for any reason is something I don't intend to discuss, and similarly, I don't intend to argue that it might be liked. For me, for example, in the musical landscape of 2007, it doesn’t stick out. It may not be a masterpiece - in fact, it is not - but it is a well-made, honest album (for me), which I would rate three and a half stars if there were decimals. But to clarify this, if the reference parameter becomes the musical history of Patti Smith or worse, the history of rock, it is clear that the evaluation might be different (this is to say that every evaluation should be based on reference parameters and that abstract evaluations are often fleeting illusions, in my opinion). However, in this area, I don't believe there are absolute wrongs or clear rights.
On the factual side, though, more can be said. The review claims that this album was born as a marketing choice following a creative crisis. This is not a fact but an opinion, albeit a somewhat weaker one. A fact is that in the liner notes, Patti Smith lets us know that she had this project in the drawer since 1978 and that she changed the album's tracklist countless times. Whether it's true or not, I don't know; everyone can freely decide what to think, in other words, they can form their own opinion, which, however, should take into account the existence of this statement, even just to refute it. Conversely, I believe that what Patti Smith stated is true for two reasons. The first is linked to the well-known straightforwardness of the character; the second is that Patti Smith has approached covers in her career before (Gloria, Hey Joe, for example). Perhaps this time she has only rationalized/systematized in a more organic way something she had already dedicated herself to. It doesn’t have to mean, therefore, that it is necessarily a rabbit that comes out of a hat to surprise the audience, studied by specialized consultants. In short, there are reasons not to think poorly, but this does not rule out that one can still be skeptical; however, I believe these points should be mentioned, even just to deny them, which does not happen on this page.
Regarding the covers in themselves: the review measures their value in relation to the original, I share the method, but not the resulting evaluations, while still respecting them. The covers deviate from the original, and Patti Smith appropriates these pieces, often altering their spirit. Therefore, if we want to, she betrays the songs. Just think of the Nirvana tracks completely stripped (and that was not easy) of the anger that characterized the original piece. It may not be liked, legitimate, I repeat, but one must recognize the existence of a total reinterpretation of the songs' spirit as absorbed by the current mood of the interpreter. For me, this is an appreciable fact, since a slavish interpretation (the mere remake) is an operation I find devoid of any meaning (at least in this context). Furthermore, noting that the reference to Grinderman seemed entirely out of place, even just as an example, the tracks - it’s true - lack aggression, but it doesn't mean they necessarily had to have it, especially since they probably reflect, as I said, the interpreter's state of mind. That they may not be liked (repetita iuvant!) is a different matter altogether. Finally, I personally find the arrangements well done, unobtrusive, and simple. They leave space for Patti Smith's voice without losing themselves in any way and prolonging the tracks, which would only unnecessarily stretch the broth, losing essence and simplicity. The review - aside from a style that (alas) I truly cannot appreciate - I find predict
